Griffey's Suggestions for 2nd Stage

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:19 pm

thoes426 wrote:Larry -
I had originaly wanted the Airtransport piece included, but now that you've mentioned Divebombers! I'd say that is the best addition to the air units!
It has more potential and stands to be purchased and used more than an Airtransport would.

Thoes426 :twisted:

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:20 pm

Guerrilla Guy wrote:DIVEBOMBER! Transport aircraft were mainly logistics... Dive Bomnbers were used by all sides and in all theatres...

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:20 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Well i have posted exhausted diatribes on the case for a divebomber/ torpedo bomber unit. Why do i say this? Germany can now use its stuka for a divebomber and used for ground support operations (bonus for attacking land units, while inferior to dogfights with fighters) This will allow a new ME -109 mold for Germany. Russia would have a similiar plane for them with a similiar values. UK, Japan, and USA would not have this plane, instead they each get torpedo bombers, that give a bonus to attacks on naval units and are inferior to dogfights with fighters. Another point was to make each of these new planes "cheaper" to build then a conventional fighter, due to lower values in air combat. If this seems unrealistic, i can find some other alternatives.
Also, i point out that we allready have a second USA fighter mold which was introduced in PACIFIC, which will now have a new use to save the costs of creating molds. Italy will have to use the ME 109 mold as well for their fighters, while to balance things out id give them torpedo bombers so 2 nations get ground support planes, while the other 4 get naval fighters.

For air transport, just use bombers ( they carry one paratrooper or 2 infantry for transport). In this game each nation gets or should get more than one bomber, except probably Italy.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:21 pm

adlertag wrote:DIVEBOMBERS thank you, that goes with the carrier.
A Divebomber unit represent 250 aircrafts and can only be used with carriers in naval combat.. The land fighter represent 1000 aircrafts and can only be used in land combat. This solves a lot of problems, plus USA already got a divebomber mold that can be used by USA and UK, and Germanys stuka can be used by Germany and Italy. Only one new mold to make for japan.

Please make the divebomber with a torpedo under, so its easy to tell apart from the fighter.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:22 pm

Imperious leader wrote:yes we are both on the same field with this idea. We need all that you stated.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:22 pm

Larry wrote::idea: :wink:

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:23 pm

Krieghund wrote:The inclusion of a separate dive-bomber piece opens a real can of worms. We now have three different classes of aircraft. How do we split them in function and differentiate their abilities?

Are dive-bombers functional on land only? At sea only? Both?

How do they interact with fighters and carriers?

What combat bonuses/penalties do they receive? Under what conditions?

The simplest way to incorporate them into the current combat system is just to give them a different attack and/or defense value than fighters, but it hardly seems worth including them just for that. The logical direction is to give them some kind of special ability to justify their existance. This could be as simple as allowing them targeted attacks or as complicated as differentiating between air-to-air and air-to-ground combat and giving all air units separate combat values for each.

If the targeted attack option is used, it could be something similar to the new sub rules, where dive-bombers could target specific ground/sea units but fighters could screen specific units from direct attack.

Thoughts?

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Re: Fighters-Air Superiority/Fighter-Bombers-Ground Support

Post by elbowmaster » Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:24 pm

Re: Fighters-Air Superiority/Fighter-Bombers-Ground Support
Craig A Yope wrote:Long ago I came up with a variant for the 2nd editon game in which I split the fighter category into two separate parts. Fighter - A-2,D-4. Fighter-Bomber - A-3, D-1. That was a pretty simple idea for the basic game that the 2nd edition is.

My gaming group got a hold of Xeno's Europe at War and fiddled with its air combat such that the player has to choose what mission the fighter is going to perform in combat- Cap Air or Tac Air- before the battle begins. Then Cap Air can choose to attack the other sides' Cap Air or attack the Tac Air.

Tac Air responds to Cap Air only if it is hit and it responds at half its defense value because it is not loaded to fight air to air. If it is not hit by Cap Air, it must continue on it mission to attack ground units. Bombers in a battle are always considered to be Tac Air.

Once the ground units run the Cap Air gambit, they choose their ground target and attack. If a ground target is hit, it must attack back at the air unit. Ground units respond to air attacks at half strength rounded up. If the ground unit is not hit, it has the choice to respond to the air unit or to wait to fire in the ground combat part of the combat cycle.

We have nice flow chart battle boards to help show the different parts of the combat cycle.

Craig

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests